World Forums

Pabs,

the russian whores who where shot (after outrageously trying to "help" in ridiculous servility NATO but failed and erased?).

Who knows, next could be...well, how about you?

And Politkovskaya's kids may perhaps inherit an Mercedes each as well. That is quite an old walz.

Btw...I would allow Bob Gates to send Donald Rumsfelt personally to shoot me in the head (for trying to argue against an invasion in Iraq....apparantly towards a bunch of groupies who were more interested in "scoring" on celebrities).

And nor does Sweden apply the death penalty so if some of the top ranked "royal" subcontractors to LA and Houston based societies are about to facing lifetime imprisonment perhaps they could be of better use by letting Pentagon inherit their gathered up funds and resources instead of living in prison at the chicken swedes expense? Max Kourchina was sort of clever in that respect surely (who he left his resources to I don't know though).

lillie,

Quite frankly it's difficult to understand the context of your posts* (even given that you're a non-native English-speaker). Why is it you cannot come to the US?

*Polite way of saying I don't understand them at all.

Narco crimes in my teens. Nothing extensive, big money worth or carried anything across any border except for needles or so but I have sort of "worked" as delivery "guy" a couple of times where I got a few grams myself for delivering a package to someone else (and I looked more like Plupp from the arctic sea (by author Inga Borg) during that period).
I did not really know back then that those I delivered to were supposed to be erased. I didn't know them personally and nor did I really know who asked me to do it (it differed). But it would be wrong to say i was lured7fooled into it, I had more or less ran away from home and didn't really bother at the time.

I have no criminal sentence for it, which I would have preferred at the time because it would have been considerably less time. But I got under the juvenile sanction/care system because I was "exposing myself to immediately and considerably danger as to life, health and/or development" as it was stated (back then that paragraph could also be applied to what people you socialized with and it is not impossible that I came under police radar because they were mainly having someone else under surveillance).

And you're not allowed to enter USA if you have committed narco crimes are you (among other crimes)? Nevermind if you formally have not been sentenced for it (one could sort of say I have been sentenced for it but it's secrecy classified for purpose that you should have some chance to straighten yourself out to a normal life afterwards (especially those under juvenile sections).

bineaz,

I must say you are quite diplomatic to other posters when asking about the context when there is wars in the middle east again. How are they expected to be other than narco distributers if they aren't given the sufficient time to build up quality industries for processing their resources (and not having other countries constantly invading and leave a sloppy mess after them)?

Similarly about context, I can not understand how come even some high ranked people in the DoD in Sweden are such NATO-cheerleaders that they gladly give away military equipment and arms just because "It's a NATO country" when it's actually a country with rather widespread corruption which leads those arms to used against civilians and moreover be sold back to criminals in the origin country who use them against civilians (and there especially various entrepeneaurs which rise the price for all on basically everything). But that is a two way street i suppose, some are rather eager to "buddy up" with people from those gangs/families becuse they get favours and other things more or less served. But there might be one day they are asked of a little favour in return which may not be so nice, and that part bugs me especially, that so many seems to fail to grip that special loyality aspect (or what to call it).

But that is a two way street i suppose, some are rather eager to "buddy up" with people from those gangs/families becuse they get favours and other things more or less served. But there might be one day they are asked of a little favour in return which may not be so nice, and that part bugs me especially, that so many seems to fail to grip that special loyality aspect (or what to call it).

I get the context here. The Godfather, right?

Our president, what a funny guy.

President George Bush: 'Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter'

The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."
He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock….

LMAO, loved this bit:

Mr Bush also faced criticism at the summit after Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, was described in the White House press pack given to journalists as one of the "most controversial leaders in the history of a country known for government corruption and vice".
The White House apologised for what it called "sloppy work" and said an official had simply lifted the characterisation from the internet without reading it.

Also, my dad and one of my cousins who were around the same age as my dad were also into that narco party life style during the 50/60s. My cousin, whom I didn't know because I've only met him when I was very little and dodn't even remember him but have only seen photos, was said to have been ery intelligent and travelling a lot around the world and hanged around the outskirts around people like Tim Leary and the likes (Tim Leary, usually known to experiment with drugs but on some occasion having been completely sober and dropped LSD in a lot of peoples drinks and started quoting passages from the Bible to see what happened).
My cousin hanged himself though in 1984, don't know why really. None of my paren't talks much about their respective and common past. I get to know things by slips from relatives and old friends to them who more or less slip out things by accident (or purpose as some have told me that my dad has not really that much for being too downgrading about what I have done or not done, which he during periods seems to have as his favourite pursue).

Colbert's take on the "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertrep ... oId=176342

LOL @ going to the Hague and saying "Goodbye from the world's biggest waterboarder."

Well...I have a wry sense of humour and may occasionally have a serious discussion about what other may joke about, like people who say they are stockbrookers making fun about making a parking place of the whole middle east...they have one in NYC now unfortunately. Not that I approve of terrorism because I don't. And reverse, sometimes i may joke about what other people think is plain horrible.

But to get back to context*...I am also sort of surprised that so many quite willingly enter into what they reasonably must know is a crime and seemingly thinking "it's easy". I have had friends in the past who have taken uponthemseleves to commit crimes, like trafficing narco for instance, who have got caught and got to learn that their dealer consider them still have a debt to pay for what was lost when they got caught even if a lot of "families" draws a line over it as already calculated in risk of loss.

But I would hate to think that someone out there would consider me still in debt as to having failed to erase some guy in the 80s though and expect me to do it today (wouldn't think he's still around anyway, he seemed sort of having self destructive out there in what was Bullshitland in Copenhagen in the 80s).

Anyone who says they delivered drugs but didn't know what they were doing etc etc is full of shit.

agreed peyman.

a friend of a friend of mine (I only met her about 2 times) used to be a drug mule. My friend, nor I of course ever took drugs.

Anyways, from what I was told, essentially she was pretty much a vacationer. She would spend a week in the Caribbrean or South America and then deliver/recieve a package

When she told her "employers" that she wanted out of her job, they set her up. They got her busted in Colombia and she ended up doing about 6 months.

Served her right. I have no respect for people in that world.

nor I of course ever took drugs.

Tell that to the judge, pussy.

Pabs wrote:agreed peyman.

a friend of a friend of mine (I only met her about 2 times) used to be a drug mule. My friend, nor I of course ever took drugs.

Anyways, from what I was told, essentially she was pretty much a vacationer. She would spend a week in the Caribbrean or South America and then deliver/recieve a package

When she told her "employers" that she wanted out of her job, they set her up. They got her busted in Colombia and she ended up doing about 6 months.

Served her right. I have no respect for people in that world.

I have no sympathy.
As for the resident drug dealer/addict, I am still trying to work out how much you need to smoke to produce the last 10 or so post. How high do you need to be to produce this amount of irrelevant nonsense.

palo

get real. I would never go near drugs.

Hey guys,

I'm taking a week off work so my time here may be limited. I don't need to say BEHAVE, because I don't want to encourage you (you know who you are).

Saluti

You know the winnie that doesn't bahave is from Canada and has homesexual and racist tendencies.

Let's try it multiple choice:
a) Buzz
b) 2cold
c)Pabs
d)Pabs
e) Both c & d

last option

ZZZzzzZZZ

more Blatter...

actually this story is about 2 months old but Sepp Blatter said that he wants to announce the host for the 2022 WC the same day the 2018 WC host is announced (which will announced in 2011)

Either this guy is doing this to buy votes for a future term or is a fucking egomanic and wants to stay in the spotlight all the time. What's the purpose of announcing the 2022 host 11 years in advance ?

Reminds me of earlier WC's. I read that the 1982 WC was announced for Spain sometime in the late 1960's and they essentially went almost 2 decades for the next host to be announced.

Anyways, I can't see how England doesn't win this thing for 2018. Everybody pretty much backs them for this anyways. Even if the US puts a bid together, they will likely do so knowing that they won't get it, but leaving people open to the idea for them to host 2022.

2018 will definitely go to England

- for starters, they are pretty much the first ones to really announce that they desperately want it

- people have "romantic" feelings about England and their standing in the game

- some of their stadiums could use upgrading or better yet rebuilding

- most importantly, with 2010 & 2014 already outside of Europe, surely FIFA won't have a WC outside of Europe 3X's in a row.

- only competition seems to be from Spain. Spain is equal to England in terms of capability to host it, but them hosting it in 82 as opposed to 66 hurts them.

other

- USA likely gets 2022. As I said earlier, they will put a bid in only to take it off the table in the understanding that they get 2022 for their support of England 2018. In return, England will fully endorse the USA for 2022. Expect to see a healthy dose of David Beckham during this time.

- 2026 will go to Spain. Spain will do the same as the USA in my example above. UEFA getting 2 WC's in a row will not be a big deal by this point seeing as how pretty much every continent has been "fed" their token WC by this time.

- 2030 likely goes to Uruguay/Argentina as a joint bid to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the first WC.

Plan B:

the same day Blatter spewed his nonsense about CR7 being a slave, he said that there was a Plan B if South Africa was unable to host.

He went on to say that there are 3 countries that have been talked to and all of them have said that they need only a year to prepare should they be granted the 2010 WC. In my mind, the USA tops the list, England & Spain being the other 2

The DFB (Germany) have announced that they were not one of the 3 federations approached for an emergency WC.

yawn

Actually interesting topic.. .kind of early, but who cares.

Agree that 2018 will go to Europe. England, Spain/Portugal Belgium/Holland/(Luxembourg) and Russia are confirmed bids...

England looks like a possibility, but IMO Spain/Portugal and Benelux have their chances. Outside Europe, if it's outside Europe, which I doubt, maybe Qatar and China would have the best chances. But it will be in Europe.

2022.. Australia, Canada, US one of those three. With China trying to get it as well but will be difficult against Australia. Or depends how far Beijing 08 will be at the time, definetly possible that we're going to see some nice little fistfights there... Japan no chance.

But I agree completely on the stupidity of deciding everything in 2011... 11 years? Unless they plan to give it to Mongolia you don't need 11 years.

2026 Certainly not spain.. the new rotation system that actually makes sense would make it impossible for Europe to get it, if 18 is in Europe, as can be expected.

2030, Uruguay/Arg actually sound's like a good idea!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Cup_2018

some of us will be dead by then. Specially the folks here past 50.


You have to give it to Europe, how else can they catch Brasil?

as was said, clearly 2018 will be in Europe. FIFA will not have 3 WC's outside of Europe in a row. No chance.

why on earth is Canada being mentioned on that link and on other sites ? LOL, I know Canada very well. This country does not have the stadiums to host a WC. At the present time, neither does Australia.

that link also made reference to both host being announced in 2011. Blatter is such a fucking cocksucker that he doesn't even hide the fact that he's up to no good by doing this.

As for 2010, notice how his "rotation policy" went away once Asia/Africa/ South America got it ?

gigli

why do you need 11 years in advance, you ask ? Well from the rumblings I've been hearing, the 2022 announcement is being pushed up by Jack Warner. This corrupt son-of-a-bitch is even worse than Blatter. The word is that he will ensure that 2022 goes to the USA. Obviously the only way he can do this is by him being in office. Cause if the announcement for 2022 was made later, he would be out of office by this time.

Now clearly the USA does not 11 years. In fact they can pull it off in 6 months notice.

As far I'm concerned, the WC hosts are already decided until 2034. If not decided, then as close as can possibly be.

If S. Africa can't host it.. hopefully it comes to US or Mexico.

is Mexico ready to host in 1 years notice ?

From what I understand, they are.

And from what is being said, 1 of the stadiums that was to be used in the Confederations Cup for next year will not be completed on time.

At the end of the day, I think they'll do it. The same was said about Athens and the 2004 Olympics and everything went smooth.

Mexico can. Although it may be a bit more difficult thatn in 1986. We have 20 professional teams and most of them are ready for it. Guadalajara will have a new stadium next season. So will Santos in the Comarca Lagunera. Cancun has a new stadium and so does Acapulco. Monterey is buiding a new stadium. I think Mexico can easily provide 12 venues. Communications are already there and the experience of '86 is still there.

Damn, that's a lot of new stadiums

who owns them ? The city or the clubs ?

They're private. Mexico does not use public money for these projects. Not only that but the new stadiums follow the NFL/European model of entertainment centers. The new Guadalajara stadium, knows as JVC ( Jorge Vergara Center) will be eco friendly, will have its own hotel, museum, training center and shopping. It will sell luxury boxes and memberships. The average Jose will be left out.

http://www.estadiochivas.com.mx/caracteristicas.php

The average Jose will be left out.

Buy your brother a ticket and he'll be cool.

The Wall Street Journal

The Fannie Mae Gang
By PAUL A. GIGOT
July 23, 2008


Angelo Mozilo was in one of his Napoleonic moods. It was October 2003, and the CEO of Countrywide Financial was berating me for The Wall Street Journal's editorials raising doubts about the accounting of Fannie Mae. I had just been introduced to him by Franklin Raines, then the CEO of Fannie, whom I had run into by chance at a reception hosted by the Business Council, the CEO group that had invited me to moderate a couple of panels.

Mr. Mozilo loudly declared that I didn't know what I was talking about, that I didn't understand accounting or the mortgage markets, and that I was in the pocket of Fannie's competitors, among other insults. Mr. Raines, always smoother than Mr. Mozilo, politely intervened to avoid an extended argument, and Countrywide's bantam rooster strutted off.

I've thought about that episode more than once recently amid the meltdown and government rescue of Fannie and its sibling, Freddie Mac. Trying to defend the mortgage giants, Paul Krugman of the New York Times recently wrote, "What you need to know here is that the right -- the WSJ editorial page, Heritage, etc. -- hates, hates, hates Fannie and Freddie. Why? Because they don't want quasi-public entities competing with Angelo Mozilo."

That's a howler even by Mr. Krugman's standards. Fannie Mae and Mr. Mozilo weren't competitors; they were partners. Fannie helped to make Countrywide as profitable as it once was by buying its mortgages in bulk. Mr. Raines -- following predecessor Jim Johnson -- and Mr. Mozilo made each other rich. Which explains why Mr. Johnson could feel so comfortable asking Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) to discuss a sweetheart mortgage with Mr. Mozilo, and also explains the Mozilo-Raines tag team in 2003.

I recount all this now because it illustrates the perverse nature of Fannie and Freddie that has made them such a relentless and untouchable political force. Their unique clout derives from a combination of liberal ideology and private profit. Fannie has been able to purchase political immunity for decades by disguising its vast profit-making machine in the cloak of "affordable housing." To be more precise, Fan and Fred have been protected by an alliance of Capitol Hill and Wall Street, of Barney Frank and Angelo Mozilo.

I know this because for more than six years I've been one of their antagonists. Any editor worth his expense account makes enemies, and complaints from CEOs, politicians and World Bank presidents are common. But Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are unique in their thuggery, and their response to critics may help readers appreciate why taxpayers are now explicitly on the hook to rescue companies that some of us have spent years warning about.

My battles with Fan and Fred began with no great expectations. In late 2001, I got a tip that Fannie's derivatives accounting might be suspect. I asked Susan Lee to investigate, and the editorial she wrote in February 2002, "Fannie Mae Enron?", sent Fannie's shares down nearly 4% in a day. In retrospect, my only regret is the question mark.

Mr. Raines reacted with immediate fury, denouncing us in a letter to the editor as "glib, disingenuous, contorted, even irresponsible," and that was the subtle part. He turned up on CNBC to say, in essence, that we had made it all up because we didn't want poor people to own houses, while Freddie issued its own denunciation.

The companies also mobilized their Wall Street allies, who benefited both from promoting their shares and from selling their mortgage-backed securities, or MBSs. The latter is a beautiful racket, thanks to the previously implicit and now explicit government guarantee that the companies are too big to fail. The Street can hawk Fan and Fred MBSs as nearly as safe as Treasurys but with a higher yield. They make a bundle in fees.

At the time, Wall Street's Fannie apologists outdid themselves with their counterattack. One of the most slavish was Jonathan Gray, of Sanford C. Bernstein, who wrote to clients that the editorial was "unfounded and unsubstantiated" and "discredits the paper." My favorite point in his Feb. 20, 2002, Bernstein Research Call was this rebuttal to our point that "Taxpayers Are on The Hook: This is incorrect. The agencies' debt is not guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or any agency of the Federal Government." Oops.

Mr. Gray's memo made its way to Wall Street Journal management via Michael Ellmann, a research analyst who had covered Dow Jones and was then at Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co. "I think Gray is far more accurate than your editorial writer. Your subscribers deserve better," he wrote to one senior executive.

I also received several interventions from friends and even Dow Jones colleagues on behalf of the companies. But I was especially startled one day to find in my mail a personal letter from George Gould, an acquaintance about whom I'd written a favorable column when he was Treasury undersecretary for finance in 1988.

Mr. Gould's letter assailed our editorials and me in nasty personal terms, and I quickly discovered the root of his vitriol: Though his letter didn't say so, he had become a director of Freddie Mac. He was still on the board when Freddie's accounting lapses finally exploded into a scandal some months later.

The companies eased their assaults when they concluded we weren't about to stop, and in any case they soon had bigger problems. Freddie's accounting fiasco became public in 2003, while Fannie's accounting blew up in 2004. Mr. Raines was forced to resign, and a report by regulator James Lockhart discovered that Fannie had rigged its earnings in a way that allowed it to pay huge bonuses to Mr. Raines and other executives.

Such a debacle after so much denial would have sunk any normal financial company, but once again Fan and Fred could fall back on their political protection. In the wake of Freddie's implosion, Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida held one hearing on its accounting practices and scheduled more in early 2004.

He was soon told that not only could he hold no more hearings, but House Speaker Dennis Hastert was stripping his subcommittee of jurisdiction over Fan and Fred's accounting and giving it to Mike Oxley's Financial Services Committee. "It was because of all their lobbying work," explains Mr. Stearns today, in epic understatement. Mr. Oxley proceeded to let Barney Frank (D., Mass.), then in the minority, roll all over him and protect the companies from stronger regulatory oversight. Mr. Oxley, who has since retired, was the featured guest at no fewer than 19 Fannie-sponsored fund-raisers.

Or consider the experience of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, one of the GOP's bright young lights who decided in the 1990s that Fan and Fred needed more supervision. As he held town hall meetings in his district, he soon noticed a man in a well-tailored suit hanging out amid the John Deere caps and street clothes. Mr. Ryan was being stalked by a Fannie lobbyist monitoring his every word.

On another occasion, he was invited to a meeting with the Democratic mayor of Racine, which is in his district, though he wasn't sure why. When he arrived, Mr. Ryan discovered that both he and the mayor had been invited separately -- not by each other, but by a Fannie lobbyist who proceeded to tell them about the great things Fannie did for home ownership in Racine.

When none of that deterred Mr. Ryan, Fannie played rougher. It called every mortgage holder in his district, claiming (falsely) that Mr. Ryan wanted to raise the cost of their mortgage and asking if Fannie could tell the congressman to stop on their behalf. He received some 6,000 telegrams. When Mr. Ryan finally left Financial Services for a seat on Ways and Means, which doesn't oversee Fannie, he received a personal note from Mr. Raines congratulating him. "He meant good riddance," says Mr. Ryan.

Fan and Fred also couldn't prosper for as long as they have without the support of the political left, both in Congress and the intellectual class. This includes Mr. Frank and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) on Capitol Hill, as well as Mr. Krugman and the Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein in the press. Their claim is that the companies are essential for homeownership.

Yet as studies have shown, about half of the implicit taxpayer subsidy for Fan and Fred is pocketed by shareholders and management. According to the Federal Reserve, the half that goes to homeowners adds up to a mere seven basis points on mortgages. In return for this, Fannie was able to pay no fewer than 21 of its executives more than $1 million in 2002, and in 2003 Mr. Raines pocketed more than $20 million. Fannie's left-wing defenders are underwriters of crony capitalism, not affordable housing.

So here we are this week, with the House and Senate preparing to commit taxpayer money to save Fannie and Freddie. The implicit taxpayer guarantee that Messrs. Gray and Raines and so many others said didn't exist has become explicit. Taxpayers may end up having to inject capital into the companies, in addition to guaranteeing their debt.

The abiding lesson here is what happens when you combine private profit with government power. You create political monsters that are protected both by journalists on the left and pseudo-capitalists on Wall Street, by liberal Democrats and country-club Republicans. Even now, after all of their dishonesty and failure, Fannie and Freddie could emerge from this taxpayer rescue more powerful than ever. Campaigning to spare taxpayers from that result would represent genuine "change," not that either presidential candidate seems interested.

Mr. Gigot is the Journal's editorial page editor.



Clockwise from top left: Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, Mike Oxley, Angelo Mozilo and Paul Krugman.

Captain Shithead wrote:
2026 Certainly not spain.. the new rotation system that actually makes sense would make it impossible for Europe to get it, if 18 is in Europe, as can be expected.

as of right now, the rotation policy is over. Blatter said this in a recent interview (I can probably find the link from the article)

considering very few nations outside of Europe can host it on their own, it sort of makes sense that this rotation policy is over.

As I wrote, once every confederation outside of UEFA (except Oceania) recieved their token WC, Blatter removed that policy.

Obama is in Germany and will give a speech tomorrow

normally I wouldn't give a shit, but here's an article about what he wanted to do. Specifically where he wanted to give the speech.

From what I understand his handlers have opted to go a different route. If I read correctly today, he will have it at the site that they used for the "Fan Mile" at the last WC.

what a fucking arrogant cocksucker

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/07/18/who_does_he_think_he_is?page=1

Pabs wrote:

Captain Shithead wrote:
2026 Certainly not spain.. the new rotation system that actually makes sense would make it impossible for Europe to get it, if 18 is in Europe, as can be expected.

as of right now, the rotation policy is over. Blatter said this in a recent interview (I can probably find the link from the article)

considering very few nations outside of Europe can host it on their own, it sort of makes sense that this rotation policy is over.

As I wrote, once every confederation outside of UEFA (except Oceania) recieved their token WC, Blatter removed that policy.

From Wikipedia

Rotation policy

Following the selection of the 2006 World Cup hosts, FIFA decided on new policy for determining the host of future world cups. The six world confederations, roughly corresponding to continents, would rotate, with the host country being selected from the confederation's members. This system was only used for the selection of the 2010 and 2014 World Cups. In September 2007, the rotation system came under review when it was proposed that only the last two World Cup host confederations be ineligible.[15] This proposal was adopted on October 29, 2007 in Zurich, Switzerland by FIFA's Executive Committee. Under this policy, a 2018 bid can come from North America, Asia, Europe, or Oceania, as the 2010 hosts, Africa, and the 2014 hosts, South America, are ineligible.[2]

Here the whole link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_bids

And if they keep this rule, 2026 couldn't go to spain. Learn to read Pabsy.

Pabs wrote:Obama is in Germany and will give a speech tomorrow

normally I wouldn't give a shit, but here's an article about what he wanted to do. Specifically where he wanted to give the speech.

From what I understand his handlers have opted to go a different route. If I read correctly today, he will have it at the site that they used for the "Fan Mile" at the last WC.

what a fucking arrogant cocksucker

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/07/18/who_does_he_think_he_is?page=1

Agree, Charles Krauthammer is an arrogant cocksucker.

hey sheep

Twice now that you've quoted Wiki as your source.

Rotation is now over. Every CONCACAF WC will be held in USA or Mexico if that was the case. Next AFC WC will be held in Tajikistan. Next African WC to be held in Mauritius

Faggy boy, quote something else that shows that not only the mindless rotation is over (which my wiki links says as well) but that there is no new rotation in place either. As for the next AFC world cup, the first one should have been held in Morocco, the next one will.